Good Morning DSA!

Here is a clip from Good Morning America which has Tory Johnson talking about direct selling. After my nice paternity leave to adjust to my son, I have to say I'm much more motivated to work from home. Now, if only I can start turning that into action.

Families Support

I am dumbfounded by the gratuitous generosity of our family and friends. The freezer and fridge are stuffed with yummy meals. The promises of food and assistance extend well into the future. And our latest addition is going to be stylishly clad for the next three months.

Response to Friend One

Friend One, exported from a Facebook exchange on same-sex marriage, "Sorry for not being clear earlier. Of course we need rules, laws, and the like. The point I was trying to make was based on the assumption that gay marriage was legal. If we have equal rights, than I can choose whether or not to participate, I can choose to belong to groups who may or may not participate, and so on.

To be honest, my position is largely based on my own experience. I have several friends from the GLBT community. These are all people who are gay in the same way you and I are straight. It is not a choice for them. But it ends there -- beyond the fact that they desire a partner of the same gender, they are the same as you and I. They are not bad people. They are not committing a crime by being together. And in the example of my friends, having them marry would give us all so much more to celebrate. Why would we want to restrict their rights? Why would we go out of our way to change our laws to exclude this group of people from being able to marry? If any given Church decides not to recognize gay marriage, then they do not have to.

You made a point in one of our earlier discussions that incest and polygamy are illegal, so gay marriage should also be illegal. To me, that illustrates our difference in opinion. If you group gay marriage in with incest and polygamy, then unfortunately I do not know of a way to explain why it's different other than to just say "it's different.""

My Response:

I find it very interesting to assume that homosexual marriage is legal. The fact that a debate is occurring disproves that point. I would appreciate a definition of the "right" being restricted. I shall assume it is the right to marry the person I love, something which is already severely restricted in law. I can marry the person I love provided that person is: over the age of consent, not related to me closer than second cousin, and unmarried. Of course, I must be over the age of consent and unmarried as well.

Friend, your assertion, that I may join groups which choose to participate or not, is not one that is shared by the majority of the "same-sex marriage" movement. When the governor of New Hampshire said he would veto same-sex marriage legislation unless it included explicit protection for churches, he was ridiculed by the bill's proponent. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage was a right, the Catholic Charities adoption program was forced to close unless it placed children with same-sex couples in direct violation of Catholic teaching. I believe that you and I would both be indignant at the idea of a group discriminating against couples based on their inter-racial status, and the "same-sex marriage" movement is using all the same civil rights legal precedent to frame the issue. It follows, therefore, that organizations will be forced to accept same-sex marriage or be closed.

I have not called anyone a "bad person." No person is a bad person, however, their actions may be bad. I decry anorexia, not anorexics; drunkenness, not alcoholics. I was friendly with a priest while I was in high school, he was a nice guy. In my experience, he was a normal guy except that he was a attracted to adolescent boys. Why should their love be illegal? Wouldn't we have more to celebrate if they weren't forced into a closet? Clearly, I am not arguing to legalize pedophilia but my experience could have led me astray if I didn't know the truth.

"Why would we go out of our way to change our laws to exclude this group of people from being able to marry?" The fact that no reason is given, as to how same-sex marriage is different than polygamy or incest, exactly captures my concern. Why do we exclude anybody from marriage? Because marriage means something, something which began to be eroded by no-fault divorce and is further eroded by ignoring the difference in the sexes.

I have tried to present my response as best as I can, Friend. Thank you for the thoughtful exchange. I hope that we can continue in all civility.

Happy Fourth!

Since I won't be able to attend a TEA Party in person, I publish this link and offer my support to those who are fighting to keep my money in my pocket. I also pray that the fiscal conservatives will not abandon the social conservatives in the next election, like they did in the last one. I also pray that fiscal conservatives will not abandon their principles in office, like President George W. Bush did.

I'm TEA'd, too!

I've been busy

Dear Reader, thank you for your persistence in reading my work. I do certainly enjoy it. I've been a little preoccupied as of late so posts may be spaced even further apart than usual. I shall return soon, after all, I apparently have a troll to feed.

Out of the Park

David Warren does it again. He penned an amazingly concise article on feminism and fatherhood, with reference to some books that I am extremely interested in reading. Back to my duties, as overheard at a very special wedding Mass this weekend, to love and serve my wife. Until death.

How to be a Family

Jen over at Conversion Diary has a spectacular article on how to survive the years of small children. I hope that I can take it all to heart. I will especially comment on the support network. Fortunately, I found a job near my boyhood home so we have been blessed to live near many of my friends and family. We have even encouraged other friends and family to move to the area! This is simply the biggest help imaginable at an amazingly affordable price. Having family and friends who help with the kiddos, in exchange for returning the favor and paying for take-out, is a great example of subsidiarity. Well, except for the take-out.

More on The Issue

Homosexuals were born that way, no wait, ignore our previous statements. Retractions like this, or more appropriately, the original unfounded assertion, make me sad about the current state of psychology. If scientists aren't dedicated to the truth, who can be?

Still true

This is a nice summary article on what Gandhi, Freud, and Pope Paul VI have to say about contraception. And I thought Freud said nothing redeeming.

Hobbyists rule

Only in the USA could three grown men have enough time and money to develop something like this. I wish they could get into MOMA.

Tried a Response

Well, I finally tried to formulate a concise response as to why "same-sex marriage" should not be legal. I posted it in response to the Facebook poll which has been floating around for a few days. Here's hoping that the Tolerance Gestapo don't hunt me down and silence me for further defining a natural family life.

"Marriage is for children. Children have the right to be raised with a mother and a father who spend their whole life together raising their children in a loving environment. Biology clearly indicates that only a man and woman can create new life and that children are not fully, mentally developed until well into their 20s. Society provides benefits to marriage so that there is incentive to sacrifice for the next generation who need much guidance to reach maturity. Hopefully, they will have a chance to make it there."

Facebook failed to post it the first time I clicked. Interesting.